CANAL.) In the same year Orville Childs. a civil engineer, completed the survey of a route for the proposed ship canal, and made a favor able report on the feasibility of the undertaking. The Vanderbilt Company in the meantime had secured a new concession for the construction of a canal in accordance with the survey made by Colonel Childs; hut this was soon revnked by the Government of Nicaragua, chiefly on account of the Walker filibustering expedition, which had for its object the conquest of Central America. The outbreak of the Civil War arrested further progress toward the con struction of the canal, but in 1867 the project was again taken up, and in June a treaty was concluded between the govern ments of the United States and Nicaragua, by which the citizens of the United States ac quired the right of free transit over any canal constructed under the authority of the Govern ment of Nicaragua, but. the right of the United States or its citizens to construct the canal was not conceded. During the ten years following 1872 almost every possible route across the Isthmus was carefully surveyed by officers and engineers of the United States Navy. In March, 1872, ]'resident Grant appointed, in compliance with a resolu tion of the Senate, a commission of three eminent military and naval engineers to investigate the subject of an isthmian canal, and these unani mously reported, February 7. 1876, in favor of the Nicaraguan route, by way of the San Juan River from Greytown and Lake Nicaragua, terminating at Brito on the Pacific coast.
In May, 1879, an international congress was held at Paris to determine the location of the interoceanic canal. The merits of the Nicara guan route were ably advocated by the delegates from the United States. but the Congress decided in favor of the Panama route. (See PANAMA CA NAL.) In 1884 a treaty NraP, concluded between the United States and Nicrr•agua, by which the United States agreed to build a canal to be owned jointly by the two powers, the United States agreeing furthe•moe to 'protect' the integrity of Nicaragua. When Cleveland lie came President, the treaty was still unratified, and he withdrew it from further consideration by the Senate. He declined to resubmit it on the ground that the construction and ownership of the canal under such ciremnstanees would be "inconsistent with its dedication to universal and neutral use" and would "entail measures for its realization beyond the scope of our national polity or present means." In the meantime a
scheme had been set on foot, chiefly by leading capitalists of New York, to construct .by private enterprise a canal through Nicaragua. in April, 1887, under the name of the Nicaragua Canal Association, they secured from the Government of Nicaragua a concession granting the exclusive privilege of constructing and operating the canal. Surveys were at once begun by a corps of compe tent engineers, and the final location of the route was soon determined upon. In February, 1889, Congress granted the eompany a charter of incorporation with a capital of $100,000,000, with authority to increase the amount to $200, 000.000. In June, 1889, the preliminary work of construction was begun at Greytown, and in the following October the actual work of exca vation began. The route finally determined upon was to begin at Greytown on the Atlantic and end at Brito on the Pacific coast, about 170 miles distant. The company erected large storehouses, hospitals, and other buildings at Greytown, es tablished the necessary railroad and telegraph service, and landed large quantities of machinery, tools, lumber, and other materials. Within a period of about one year $2,000.000 had been ex pended. In 1893 the company ceased operations owing to lack of funds, a fruitless effort having been made to induce Congress to guarantee the principal and interest at 4 per cent. of an issue of $100,000,000 of canal company bong's, to be is sued for construction purposes. In 1895 Congress provided for the appointment of three engineers, namely, Colonel Win. Ludlow, U.S.A.; M. F. Endicott, C.E.; and Alfred Noble, collectively known as the Ludlow Commission. to investigate and report upon the feasibility and cost of com pleting the work already begun by the company. They reported in favor of the feasibility of the project, estimating the cost at $133,472,893, as against the company's estimate of about half that amount. In view of the small appropriation made by Congress, and the consequent impossi bility of making an exhaustive investigation, the commission advised a more thorough investiga tion with a view to the possible discovery of a more advantageous route.